https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Delhi VAT Act and upholding the Tribunal's decision to deny input tax credit to the appellant. The Court emphasized that input credit cannot be denied solely based on the selling dealer's actions unless collusion is proven, rejecting the argument that credit is contingent on the selling dealer's tax deposits. The Court distinguished a previous Bombay High Court decision and concluded that the specific provision of Section 9(2)(g) is not merely clarificatory but an exception to the general rule, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the interpretation of Section 9(2) of the Delhi VAT Act and upholding the Tribunal's decision to deny input tax credit to the appellant. The Court emphasized that input credit cannot be denied solely based on the selling dealer's actions unless collusion is proven, rejecting the argument that credit is contingent on the selling dealer's tax deposits. The Court distinguished a previous Bombay High Court decision and concluded that the specific provision of Section 9(2)(g) is not merely clarificatory but an exception to the general rule, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339432